snapa: Most boring camera release I can remember. After reading the specs and looking at the camera, it took me about 5 milliseconds to decide I was not interested. No matter how fast the AF is, if the pictures are not any good (at least RX100III IQ), what is the point? No tilting/touch screen, 4k video, no grip, EVF, WTF!
Canon, Panasonic, Fuji has failed this year IMO with their pitiful attempts to produce anything worth upgrading to. Hopefully Sony (a7000), Olympus (ZX-3), Nikon (P8000) may still introduce something worthwhile this year.
You failed to realize that people are going to buy less cameras in 2015 than in 2014. They know that.
Sean65: There's a lot of talk about sensor size but to be honest the small sensor in the XF1 which I bought for my partner took a lovely shot. That was only a 6MP sensor so I not sure if the 12MP sensor produces the same image quality but if it does then it definitely worth a look. The older XQ1 was also known to be quite a responsive P&S camera. I'd imagine the price will drop quite fast.
I had xF1 and I can tell you it had abysmal quality for the money. It didn't make better images than the wal-mart $100 bubble wrapped Fuji/Olympus/canon cameras but easily cost more than 3x-4x.
One thing I learned long time ago. Fujis rugged waterproof cameras stink like no other. As much respect I have for the X series, there is hardly worse rugged compact than fujis.
How about a new X100U with bayer sensor?
Axel Vercauteren: Same poor ergonomics as the X-A1. The A6000 is about the same size and weightand adds a viewfinder and a much better grip.Another marketing thing from Fuji along withnumerous superzooms.
here A6000 is nearly 2 x more expensive than a1. Whats the point of such comparison? I can also say that X-t1 is much more ergonomic camera, but that again is a faulty comparison.
Stephen Scharf: The Fuji X-A-series are really under-rated cameras. I have the original X-A1, and the image quality, color, dynamic range, and high-ISO noise performance are exceptional. The X-A1 may have the best noise performance at high ISO of any of the X-series cameras (see the review of this by Imaging Resource last year).
At this price point, you get a very capable camera that has image quality that exceeds the Olympus OM-D series (I also own the OM-D E-M1 and previously owned the E-M5), and the camera scales very well with the higher specification Fuji X-mount lenses.
Great way to get in to the Fuji X system at a very reasonable cost. It also pairs beautifully with the sweet little 27mm pancake.
I agree with that. it is tremedous bang for the buck, but very people realize tat. Those A1 had been sitting on permanent sale in my local best buy store for a long time.
Just a Photographer: It does show that mobile phones are taking over a large portion of the overall camera market. But it doesn't say anything about the quality of the images taken with those phones.
The quality doesn't play significant role in most people lives. In fact I don't know any of my smart phone friends who would complain about quality of their images. It is like complaining of quality of mp3 vs CD. Real-life people do not do that.
wow, what a totally new concept.
I look more into this and I smell rat. The HEVC/ H.265 falls under a commercial patent administered by MPEG LA and the patent pool is held by companies like Fraunhofer , apple, Cisco, Ericsson etc...Why would anybody create a "new" web standard that relies on possible patent and royalty licensing scheme is beyond my comprehension, unless the guy behind it is financed by the patent holders or simply don't care.
The last thing I need is to start using a new BPG format only to realize in few years that I am in a lawsuit for unpaid royalties.
Fool me once with Gif....
Poweruser: A solution to a problem that doesnt exist. JPG in best quality is already "good enough" for almost anything. If you want something losless, use PNG, TIFF, whatever.
Even if we want to get out of jpeg 8 bit per channel, do we need to create whole new format? It would be easy to make backward compatible jpg+ that can hold more bits. It reminds me Linux where everyone wants to make his own distro.
Why would chroma subsampling be put as a feature? As I understand chroma subsampling means encoding chroma in lower resolution than luma. The only reason for doing this is to save file size, everything else is a disadvantage and results in the famous jpeg artifacts. We don't necessary need to save few kb of file space anymore.
After all that experimenting, Nikon is back on track with what they do best.
mpgxsvcd: I have used ACDSee as my editing program since 1999. I think their software is the simplest software to learn that can still get the job done in a heavy editing environment.
That being said their RAW support is abysmal. There is list of cameras below that are supported by most other editing software programs but ACDSee does not support them despite the fact that they were given samples for some of these cameras months ago.
Adding new features does you no good if your camera’s RAW format is not supported. They will tell you that you can just use DNG Converter to convert all of your files before you bring them in for editing. That is a time consuming process that makes ACDSee unusable.
These cameras are not supported. They typically add support for a camera within 1 year of it being released. That is not acceptable.
Canon 7D MKIIPanasonic LX100Panasonic GH4Canon G7XNikon D750
Thanks for pointing at the Photovivo
mpgxsvcd: If I was ACDSee I would be scratching a check to Dave Coffin right now to get the RAW support for the latest cameras out.
I can’t believe a company would allow their entire product line to be dependent on an outside resource that is not obligated to make updates on ACDSee’s timeline. If Dave Coffin decides he doesn’t want to support DCRAW anymore then ACDSee will cease to exist for all customers that would ever want to buy a new camera in the future.
ACDSee needs to either hire Dave Coffin or hire someone else that can do the RAW development in house. I know there are other editing programs in the same boat. They need to make changes as well. One day we will find that Lightroom is the ONLY option simply because they do RAW conversion development in house.
Seriously ACDSee’s recommendation for converting RAW images that their software doesn’t support is to use their competitors software until they get around to fixing their software.
well it is because dcraw doesn't support fuji x due the fuji proprietary algorithms.But the issue is not by paying fee to a free developer (the dcraw is a mess anyway) the issue is to cough enough money to make your own developer. But that require commitment.
SantaFeBill: I was very disappointed to find that, at least for the U.S., the trial version dl is only available from Cnet and Zdnet. (Google 'ACDSee Ultimate 8 download'.) The former forces you to use their own dl sw and installer, which, the last time I tried it, wants to load a bunch of junk along with the sw you wanted. The latter requires that you join, with I'm sure the inevitable flood of more junk e-mails.I'm contacting ACDSee and telling them I'm not going to be upgrading until I can get a trial directly from them, as has always been the case in the past.(ACDSee Pro fan/user since v. 2.)P.S. To be clear, clicking on the trial button on ACDSee's own site takes you directly to Cnet - no option to dl from ACDSee.
They don't have the bandwidth? This is not two guys in a moms garage company
"Create, reorder, merge and manipulate layers individually"
"Manipulate individual parts of an image without affecting another area for more precise editing"
LightZone has been doing those 2 things since 2006
"Apply filters and effects to layers"
"Apply Pixel Targeting to layers"
And these 2 things since about 2009 (if I understand it correctly).
ACDsee does some things that LightZone doesn't do, of course, but those 4 above jumped out at me. BTW, LightZone has also been free and open source for 3 years now. We share a problem with ACDsee, though: reliance on another source for part of our raw demosaicing (dcraw).
I don't get it. Doesn't every other layer editor does the same? How is "Apply filters and effects to layers" and all the others unique to ACDSee or Lightzone?
Lanidrac: Why can't they just stay with being a good photo viewer instead of this editing nonsense? ACDSee is becoming useless bloatware. Sad.
There is plenty of great free viewers, some are even better in many ways than any ACDSee version. The fact that they are still in business with the same 15 years old business model is astounding. It is obvious to them that they need to add value, or people will simply turn away. I am not sure making a me-too editor is the correct way to do it. It is still fighting the previous war.
Harry Von Zel: To all who believe this sale is factual or any other sale that's been reported as $1,000.000.00 on up; I've got news for you.Recently Andy Warhol paintings were sold for $150,000,000.00 in NY at Christies Auction House.....just as did Andreas Gursky's image of The Rhine....and who still holds the world record for the highest paid (and verified by the ever reputable Christies Auction House).
I am ashamed to say I purchased a Lik image some years ago and to see what he's done with images such as this "Phantom" a clone of his image "Ghost" and then bold face lie by creating nothing less than "propaganda" and claiming (from his own camp) that some anonymous buyer collected the image is just horrible and a very desperate move for publicity.
People wake up!!!This is bad and it's not truthful. Boycott any artist who operates unethically. Look at Thomas Kincaid. Lik is operating horribly and I find this to be a direct insult to those of us as collectors.
Look at an image called "Solace", now look at "Endless SummerLook at "Ghost" now look at Phantom.......this is total BS....buyer beware !!
I like your buyer beware comment. Thanks, I was almost going to spill $10 million on his next picture just to outbid all the others pixel peepers on this forum. Because we all know this is exactly the forum where multimillionaires go discussing their cameras.
marc petzold: To be honest, i don't know *if* that particular picture is worth that amount of money, but into my eyes - it looks way artificial, just like a phenomen from a upcoming prometheus-alien saga movie...into other words...it's way cool...
Why do you think the buyer cares if it is photoshoped or not?
Some people are just geniuses.